Kashief White, an inmate currently confined at Bayside State Prison, appeals from the March 1, 2012 final determination of the Department of Corrections (DOC) after administrative proceedings during which he was found guilty of prohibited act .257, violation of a condition of community release program, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a). He also appeals from the sanctions imposed: fifteen days detention, ninety days administrative segregation, and sixty days loss of commutation time.

The charges resulted from White being observed on February 18, 2012, coming out of a shower stall with another inmate who was in possession of alcohol. White was fully dressed.

At his request, White was assigned a counsel substitute, and entered a not guilty plea to the charges. He had initially also been charged with *.203, possession of a prohibited substance, N.J.A.C. 10A:4-4.1(a), but was found not guilty of that violation. In adjudicating the disciplinary charge, the hearing officer relied upon the report of the officer who encountered White coming out of the shower stall. He found that a "reasonable person would know [inmates] are not . . . permitted in shower stall [with] another" inmate consuming alcohol. White did not testify or present witnesses.

White administratively appealed the decision and the sanctions, which appeal was denied. This appeal followed.

White raises the following issues for our consideration:

POINT I

THE DECISION OF THE HEARING OFFICER VIOLATES DUE PROCESS AND THEREFORE, SHOULD BE VACATED.

(a)

The Decision of the Hearing Officer Should be Vacated Because the Determination was not Based on Substantial Evidence That Appellant Violated a Condition of the Community Release Program.

(b)

The Decision Should Also be Vacated Because the Hearing Officer Failed to Provide a Summary of Evidence Relied on Which Supported the Finding, and Merely Catalog[u]ed the Alleged Evidence Without Offering any Specific Facts Regarding it.

White's argument is essentially this: hearing officers routinely believe prison guards without question, and he was unaware of any program policy prohibiting two inmates from occupying a shower together. This argument has no basis in the record, however, particularly since the gravamen of the offense was not White's presence in the stall with another inmate, but White's presence while fully dressed with another who possessed alcohol.

Furthermore White has not directed our attention to anything in the record that establishes that his adjudication of guilt on 257 violated the procedural requirements of
Avant v Clifford67 N.J. 496 528-32 (1975) as subsequently codified in NJAC 10A:4-91 to -928 Nor has he identified any law which supports his argument that the hearing in this case violated his due process right.

Hence we are satisfied that the DOC's ultimate determination in this matter was sufficiently grounded in substantial credible evidence Henry supra 81 N.J. at 579-80 and that the administrative adjudication was completed with all requisite procedural due process see
Jacobs v Stephens139 N.J. 212 (1995); McDonald v Pinchak139 N.J. 188 (1995)

Affirmed.

Our website includes the main text of the court's opinion but does not include the
docket number, case citation or footnotes. Upon purchase, docket numbers and/or
citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a legal proceeding.
Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.